I approve only because if I object to it, I object for reasons I don't know if I understand. Do people hate the idea of 10 Worst Picture nominees because the votes get spread out more? Say, for example, a movie would get first place against 4 others. If you add in 5 more, those 5 might take away votes from that one movie and change the winner. Is that why most of you object?

-------------

Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 13 2011 at 3:52pm

If they make the category for 10,I'd still prefer to keep all the other categories for 5.

GTAhater, I am going to try and explain why i am against 10 nominees, but i have to warn you that i only had less than 3 hours of sleep tonight (so my thoughts might come over as not all that clearly)

I am against 10 nominees in the Worst Picture-category because of two reasons:

1) The amount of movies on the nomination-ballot will increase which makes it... What's the word... The English equivelant of the Dutch words/terms "onoverzichtelijk" or "het overzicht verliezen" (forgive me people.. I am sleep deprived)

2) I also fear that voters will choose more the mixed-reviewed big blockbuster titles over the badly reviewed Box-Office Bombs (imaging a list filled with films like last years Twilight Eclipse....). Leaving a mark on the creditabillity of the Razzies

-------------

Posted By: Spyke
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 12:20am

I think it would be good because there would be room for more deserving films for example if we had 10 last year Skyline could have been nominated.

But I do agree that we should stick with 5 for all the other catagories.

-------------

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 5:18am

It's a bad idea for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a worse one for us. I have pointed out in the past that from a mathematical standpoint, even 5 nominees can create unintentional winners unless you employ a weighted voting system. Adding 5 more makes voting utter chaos for us. The Academy is going to find in the future that 10 nominees is going to lead to a lot of strange winners, and they have close to 6000 voting members. That is more than we have by nearly an order of magnitude.

The suggestion that Skyline would have made it last year is probably flawed. It didn't appear on the initial voting ballot, and it wouldn't necessarily have made it into the final 10. Further, the intial nominating ballot would have to be expanded to at least 15-20 films, several of which wouldn't be deserving.

Ultimately, if we expanded our Worst Picture to 10 films, based upon the size of our membership, a film could end up "winning" with as few as 70 votes. Since a lot of our voting members probably don't end up watching all the nominated films, odds are high that movies are going to end up winning based upon name recognition over being truly deserving. In other words, this year we might well have granted Miguel his wet dream of handing the trophy to Twlight not because most of us thought it was particularly bad, but just because a lot of members heard more about it than the other films on the ballot.

Addendum: Not to belabor a point, but just to clarify a term: AMPAS and the Razzies employ a voting system where there is a slate of movies on the ballot, and members vote for one film. A weighted system, which is probably more representative of voters opinions allows voters to rank preferences. It is similar to how votes are cast for the Heisman Trophy, as one example. Say that there is a list of 10 movies on the ballot. Each voter might make 5 selections, with their top choice receiving 5 points, their second receiving 4 points and so on. Ultimately, the winner is going to be the film that receives the most first or second place votes. Under this system, name recognition tends to get factored out. A film like Twilight might end up getting votes on a lot of ballots, but if they are predominately 4th or 5th place votes, it would get swamped by a film like The Last Airbender which would have probably received lots of first and second place votes.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 5:53am

Saturnwatcher, Completely agree!

-------------

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 7:40am

If I may make one further point, Head Razz offers a Lifetime membership, which permits a member to add 55 names to the membership for the $500 contribution. Since our voting is now done predominately by email, it isn't all that difficult to create 55 email addresses, which effectively permits one member a lot of voting power. Since, as I noted above, adding 5 more nominees to the final ballot potentially drops the threshold of victory to about 70 votes, a situation could be created where one indivual would be dangerously close to deciding the "winner" every year. If someone was enthusiastic enough to buy 2 Lifetime memberships, they would effectively buy a voting block that would be extremely difficult for the rest of the membership to override.

The initial ballots still go out by mail, but I wouldn't have much problem getting 55 friends, co-workers and family members to permit me to offer their addresses, and simply give me the ballots when they arrived. So by increasing the ballot to 10, you are creating the double edged sword of splitting the vote and offering the opportunity for someone to effectively buy the right to name the winner.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: Joel Kessell
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 8:43am

5 just makes more sense, mathematically, and gut feeling wise.

Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 12:45pm

Guys,of course having 10 nominees could be flawed. But it's not like it's perfect right now. A lot of times people disagree with our "winners."

It's true that our Voting Members may not watch every nominee, and that the "winners" could win by only a few votes. But that has more to do with the voters, and a system that allows anyone to be a voter.

Originally posted by Vheid

The amount of movies on the nomination-ballot will increase which makes it... What's the word... The English equivelant of the Dutch words/terms "onoverzichtelijk" or "het overzicht verliezen"

Vits, You're Wrong. I am pretty sure that the Dutch word for "confusing" is "verwarrend".

-------------

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 1:51pm

There's a difference between the Oscars doing ten Best Pictures and the Razzies doing ten Worst Pictures. The number of Oscar voters goes well into the thousands, while Razzie voters are only in the hundreds. As saturnwatcher said, 600-700 votes split ten ways could result in a least deserving movie getting the award ... and I refuse to make Miguel's wet dream come true (if saturnwatcher can say it, so can I). Considering the amount of sequels and remakes being made nowadays, the Worst Sequel, Etc. category makes for an equally important category that could substitute any deserving movie that dodges Worst Picture, since chances are that said movie will be listed in both categories. Any Razzie win is a win for Razzie voters.

As for the Oscars, let's face it, be it five Best Picture contenders or ten of them, it ALWAYS comes down to two movies who have been favored over the award season from the Golden Globes, to the British Oscars, and everything in between. And if the "wrong" movie wins, it's usually because it was the "safer" movie for political reasons. Yes, ten spots for Best Picture does get worthy movies into the category that may have gotten overlooked with only five slots, but some are just filler spots, and are no real threat to actually winning the award. In the end, ten spots works when your memberships are in the thousands, but not the hundreds.

-------------"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 4:27pm

Sorry,I used the Google translator.Now that you're fully awake could you please translate?

Originally posted by Vheid

Vits, You're Wrong. I am pretty sure that the Dutch word for "confusing" is "verwarrend".

I would say taking the the number to 10 in any category would be nice, but as pointed out by Michaels, since our voting membership is so small it would run the risk of allowing to many mediocre movies on the final ballot instead of the true cream de la sh*t. I would say that a good compromise though would be to expand the worst picture category from 5... (Drum-roll please)... to 6. Why 6? I'll tell you: All those other award shows do things in increments of 5 or 10, but what award show out there does 6? Nobody, I tell you! It works for everybody, we can add another sh*tactular movie to our list, and at the same time continue the razzie tradition of being not quite the norm in terms of award shows.

Originally posted by Michaels

As saturnwatcher said, 600-700 votes split ten ways
could result in a least deserving movie getting the award ... and I
refuse to make Miguel's wet dream come true (if saturnwatcher can say
it, so can I).

, very true, It also doesn't help when the Nominating Ballot, which is handpicked by HR himself (I believe) is littered with mediocre movies like Twilight, or The Expendables. I wanted to get my membership last year, but was in debt at the time so I couldn't afford it. Had i gotten it though, I probably would've been more than a little disappointed.

On that note though, I do plan on finally getting my membership this year... unless I get myself banned from the Razzies beforehand, LOL

-------------I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin

Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 6:57pm

And with that, you've finally given Miguel an idea of how to give Twilight a Razzie "win" -- I hope you're happy, Saturn! (Kidding lol)...

In all seriousness though, while it is a scary thought in theory, the idea that someone would pay $500 or a $1000 just to make sure a certain movie wins an award from us is a extreme stretch, and that's putting it lightly. Most of us don't have that kind of money to just spend on an award show, the only people that do would be actual movie critics like Peter Travers, and i don't think guys like that would be that much of a douche-bag to pull off something like that. (Maybe Armond White might do that, but he's a whiny troll that's an embarrassment to professional film critics, so yeah)...

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

If I may make one further point, Head Razz offers a
Lifetime membership, which permits a member to add 55 names to the
membership for the $500 contribution. Since our voting is now done
predominately by email, it isn't all that difficult to create 55 email
addresses, which effectively permits one member a lot of voting power.
Since, as I noted above, adding 5 more nominees to the final ballot
potentially drops the threshold of victory to about 70 votes, a
situation could be created where one indivual would be dangerously close
to deciding the "winner" every year. If someone was enthusiastic enough
to buy 2 Lifetime memberships, they would effectively buy a voting
block that would be extremely difficult for the rest of the membership
to override.

The initial ballots still go out by mail, but I wouldn't have much
problem getting 55 friends, co-workers and family members to permit me
to offer their addresses, and simply give me the ballots when they
arrived. So by increasing the ballot to 10, you are creating the double
edged sword of splitting the vote and offering the opportunity for
someone to effectively buy the right to name the winner.

-------------I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 8:57pm

It probably isn't very likely, but it isn't impossible, and it is a one time payout, if I am not mistaken. From the stanpoint of a studio, it might actually be a comparatively modest investment to help make sure their movies and actors avoid winning Razzies, or possibly a good publicity ploy to make sure they do, in some cases. If you hang around as a voting member for about 10 years, it actually makes financial sense to buy the lifetime membership as well, providing you can scrape up the cash...

As to the suggestion of expanding the number of nominations to 6, I have no real problem with that. BUT...five was chosen because the Razzies are modeled after the Oscars, and until a couple of years ago their traditional number was 5. To the best of my knowledge, Head Razz does pick the initial slate of nominees...I would suspect he probably has some consultants although I would be interested in hearing him give his thoughts on the process. But considering that he has experience in the industry AND a few decades running the organization, I have no problem defering to his expertise.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 14 2011 at 9:12pm

Damn it, why does math have to always spoil everyone's fun!?

-------------"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: May 15 2011 at 6:51am

Because you asked, Vits, I'll try to answer your question to the best of my ability:

I believe there is no English equivalent to "onoverzichtlijk".

The literal translation to "overzicht" would be "oversight" which isn't really a word in English.

Het overzicht hebben (Having the oversight) or something that is Overzichtelijk, would mean that you are fully aware (and/or in control of) everything that happens in a situation (example: the case of a teacher in a busy class room). It is sometimes also used when someone has full understanding of the information in a text or a document. In this case i was talking about a full awareness of all the titles named on the nomination ballot.

ONoverzichtelijk means the opposite, So NOT being fully aware (and/or in control of) everything that happens in a situation.

Hope this kind of explains it....

Update:

A related word is Overzien, which translated means "Oversee"

Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by Vheid

Vits, You're Wrong. I am pretty sure that the Dutch word for "confusing" is "verwarrend".

Sorry,I use the Google translator.Now that you're fully awake could you translate?

I recently saved up €200,- (within a couple months time) for a new laptop, So i think it wouldn't be that hard for me to get €354,35 (which is $500,- with the current inflation).

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

In all seriousness though while it is a scary thought in theory, the idea that someone would pay $500 or a $1000 just to make sure a certain movie wins an award from us is a extreme stretch, and thats putting it lightly. Most of us don't have that kind of money to just spend on an award show, the only people that do would be actual movie critics like Peter Travers, and i don't think guys like that would be that much of a douche to pull off something like that. (Maybe Armond White might do that, but he's a whiny troll that's an embarrassment to professional film critics so yeah)

-------------

Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: May 15 2011 at 10:52am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: In reply to the back-and-forth above:

1) ON the QUESTION of EXPANDING OUR WORST PICTURE LIST to 10 NOMINEES: The AMPAS actually have a voting membership of more than 4,500 industry types. Our current Voting Membership is around 750. Thus, with 10 contenders, it would be statistically possible to "win" our top award with less than 80 votes, thereby making us no more meaningful than The Golden Globs.

2) ON the QUESTION of MAYBE GOING to SIX NOMINEES INSTEAD of 5: Interesting thought, but again, statistics create a problem -- Not only do more nominees mean less votes needed to "win," I'm fairly sure an even number of nominees would increase the chances of there being ties. Other than as a gimmick (which the Oscars' going to 10 Best Picture nominees blatantly was) I see no reason to mess with a method that has worked berry well for 3 decades...

3) ON the QUESTION of HOW CONTENDERS ARE CHOSEN for OUR NOMINATING BALLOT: In picking what ends up being listed, I go by several factors: Obviously reviews play a role (though we do occasionally have nominees that got only mediocre reviews). I also look at box-office-versus production cost. I factor in as well what movie-goers themselves rated the film (using both User Ratings at IMDb and CinemaScore grades). And finally, I factor in the "liveliness" of any title's Forum discussion -- Assuming that the more comments a title logs on our Forum, the more interest our Voting Members have in seeing it get RAZZed. I have been pleased to see that, in the past year or so, Forum Members have begun a number of their own Forum discussions on films they think I've overlooked.

In general, looking over our 31 year history, I'd say we've done at least as good a job of picking Hollywood's WORST Achievements each year as The Giving Out of the Little Gold Naked Men® has done at picking Tinsel Town's purported best...

On this berry subject, here's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/have-the-razzies-really-made-a-difference_topic5060.html - ® have had thus far...

-------------Ye Olde Head RAZZberry

Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 15 2011 at 11:01am

I've thought about it, and I think I've got an answer: How about if each year it's different?Let's say that during the ballots there's no landslide and 5 movies get about the same amount of votes. Those would be the nominees. Let's say it's 6 movies, those can be the noms..See where I'm going? With this system, there's no need to worry about splitting votes...not when HeadRAZZ already knows the main contenders and how the results will likely be. However,the number should always be between 5 and 10.

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

I would say that a good compromise though would be to expand the worst picture category from 5... (Drum-roll please)... to 6. Why 6? I'll tell you: All those other award shows do things in increments of 5 or 10, but what award show out there does 6? Nobody, I tell you! It works for everybody, we can add another sh*tactular movie to our list, and at the same time continue the razzie tradition of being not quite the norm in terms of award shows.

After the Oscars changed to 10,a lot of the big award shows tried to copy that. The People's Choice went from 3 to 5,and the MTV Movie Awards have 6 noms instead of 5 for Best Breakout Star. But mainly, the Emmys went from 5 to 6 except in Oustanding Drama/Comedy Series, which sometimes have 7.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: If you're looking for logic where award shows are concerned, steer clear of the Emmys -- If you look over their history, they are the only ones who could compete with the Golden Globs in terms of lack of consistency in their choices, and the rules by which the nominees are determined.

Yep, like HeadRazz said, we just don't have the membership numbers to divide the votes between 10 choices. And it is our duty to keep denying Miguel of his wet dream (oh saturnwatcher, what have you started?!)!

-------------"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

Posted By: zambio
Date Posted: May 16 2011 at 8:22pm

Yes, I agree with Joel Kessell -- 5 makes sense, and feels good . It works best when u choose the top 3 or top 5, rather than top 10...

http://www.ineedseo.com - i need SEO

Posted By: AndyDuke
Date Posted: May 17 2011 at 8:37am

I agree 5 nominees is best

Posted By: Spyke
Date Posted: May 18 2011 at 11:12am

Wow my post had quite a turnout

-------------

Posted By: bamablogger
Date Posted: May 19 2011 at 6:07pm

Just a thought... take the 10 most recommended and only the "top" 5 get to be voted on for the final awards... the lower 5 would be dishonorable mentions... or something like that? Thoughts?

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 8:58am

Lots of critics put out an annual "10 Worst" list, which is effectively what your idea amounts to. The purpose of the Razzies is to name a Worst Picture as a counterpoint to the Oscar's Best Picture. Let's not get into clogging the drains and just keep doing what we already do.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: Brent00
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 3:27pm

You make good points, Vheid. I'd have to agree!

Originally posted by Vheid

I am against 10 nominees in the Worst Picture-category because of two reasons:

1) The amount of movies on the nomination-ballot will increase which makes it... What's the word... The English equivelant of the Dutch words/terms "onoverzichtelijk" or "het overzicht verliezen" (forgive me people.. I am sleep deprived)

2) I also fear that voters will choose more the mixed-reviewed big blockbuster titles over the badly reviewed Box-Office Bombs (imaging a list filled with films like last years Twilight Eclipse....). Leaving a mark on the creditabillity of the Razzies

Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 4:06pm

After thinking about, I think that the only way that 10 Worst Picture nominees could work is if there's a lot of bad movies in a year. With the way that 2011 is going, this could work.

People, people, in the end, the math doesn't work. 750 divided by 10, that's just not going to work. And like saturnwatcher and Michaels, I'm not helping to make Miguel's wet dream (I think that term should officially replace us calling it an "obsession") come true of "Twilight" getting Worst Picture because it got 30% of the vote! If you want ten Worst Picture nods, get as many friends and family members that you know to buy Razzie memeberships. If we have 10,000 or more voters, now we're talking. But damn, getting those kind of numbers won't be easy.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 23 2011 at 7:40am

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

People, people, in the end, the math doesn't work. 750 divided by 10, that's just not going to work. And like saturnwatcher and Michaels, I'm not helping to make Miguel's wet dream (I think that term should officially replace us calling it an "obsession") come true of "Twilight" getting Worst Picture because it got 30% of the vote! If you want ten Worst Picture nods, get as many friends and family members that you know to buy Razzie memeberships. If we have 10,000 or more voters, now we're talking. But damn, getting those kind of numbers won't be easy.

Permit me to clarify terms:

For Twilight to get Razzies nominations is Miguel's obsession

For Twilight to win a Razzie would be Miguel's wet dream

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 23 2011 at 2:14pm

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Permit me to clarify terms:

For Twilight to get Razzies nominations is Miguel's obsession

For Twilight to win a Razzie would be Miguel's wet dream

Ah, so now we're breaking down Miguel's hatred of "Twilight" in categories, too?

-------------"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

Posted By: wildheart
Date Posted: May 23 2011 at 5:11pm

I think these are more voted on preference of movie like action to horror to romance to comedy. Not really best movie or worst movie. Just preference.

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 23 2011 at 5:14pm

Welcome to the board, wildheart. However, I disagree with your assessment. I have never cast a Worst Picture vote on the genre of the movie. I vote based on things like bad casting, performances, silly writing, continuity mistakes and unintentional humor, among other factors.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: beckypryan
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 11:21pm

New to the forum, 5 sounds like the way to go.

I am not for tearing people down but it would be interesting to see what people think are the top 5 worst.

-------------Becky

Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 11:51pm

Welcome Becky... I hope you stick around (unlike those one-time posters we seem to have joining here)

-------------

Posted By: beckypryan
Date Posted: May 29 2011 at 12:01am

Already up to 2 posts, and this makes 3!

I typically do more reading than commenting, but I have a real interest in commenting on movies and seeing what other people think.

I did not go to see Hangover II yet, and I may have to skip it in theaters and just download it, since it did not impress Razzie Forum folks.

-------------Becky

Posted By: Spyke
Date Posted: May 29 2011 at 11:42am

Welcome Becky and thanks for posting your first post on my thread :,)

-------------

Posted By: 27years
Date Posted: May 29 2011 at 12:01pm

I actually think wildheart has a point! (See below) I'm not saying everybody does this (especially most people who post on these forums, from what I can see) but there are definitely some people who will just vote against particular genres (or even people) that they do not like. It's a matter of personal taste over actual analysis of quality in an unbiased fashion. It's unfortunate, and I doubt there is anything anyone can do about it.

Originally posted by wildheart

I think these are more voted on preference of movie like action to horror to romance to comedy. Not really best movie or worst movie. Just preference.

-------------

Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: May 29 2011 at 3:58pm

27 Years: If it were up to you, and you had to do a "thorough analysis" of the various films' qualities, what do you think should've "won" for each year from 2000-2010?

-------------

Posted By: 27years
Date Posted: May 29 2011 at 6:01pm

Dont get me wrong GTAHater767...I'm not necessarily saying that the ultimate "winners" for the last decase were in any way "wrong" choices, I was just making an observation about human nature. I think there will always be an element of people voting (or nominating) movies simply because they are not to their personal taste.

I would hope that these people are in the minority of Razzie voters, but they definitely exist. That's all I was saying...

-------------

Posted By: tonyt42
Date Posted: May 30 2011 at 8:49am

Negative awards I am against.

Too many people do good work behind the scenes get lumped into the negative criticism.

Posted By: riris
Date Posted: May 30 2011 at 8:18pm

Listing 10 movies as the nominees for worst picture will show that there are more bad movies this year, no matter which one ends up the "winner." I hope this could be a motivation for other movie makers for their next movies to be better.

-------------

Posted By: yingxuy
Date Posted: December 14 2011 at 10:16pm

It alwayscomes down to the two filmsfavored bythe Golden Globes, the BritishAcademy,and every awardin between.

Posted By: billingsley
Date Posted: January 04 2012 at 6:02pm

I support ten Worst Picture nominees. 5 spots aren't enough for all the awful films this year.